CURRICULUM VITAE
Eye for the Obvious
Nanette M. Barto
Forensic Document Examiner
7631 Mariposa Avenue,
Citrus Heights, CA 95610
Phone: 916-225-3016
Fax: 916-910-9657
eyefortheobvious@yahoo.com
I am, Nanette M. Barto, a court qualified Forensic Document Examiner. Beginning my career in
2007, I have examined over 400 document examination cases involving over 6500 documents.
I trained with the International School of Forensic Document Examination and have apprenticed
under a leading court-qualified Forensic Document Expert.
Forensic Examination Provided For:
Disputed documents or signatures including: wills, checks, contracts, deeds, account ledgers,
medical records, and autograph authentication. Investigation and analysis including:
questioned signatures, suspect documents, forgeries, identity theft, anonymous letters,
alterations, obliterations, erasures, typewritten documents, altered medical records, graffiti,
handwritten numbers, and computerized and handwritten documents.
Education


Proficiency Testing Yearly: Collaborative Testing Services
American River College: Associate in Arts - Psychology, Graduation Date May 2012

American River College: Associate in Arts – Legal Assisting, Graduation Date May 2011

International School of Forensic Document Examination: Certified Forensic Document
Examination, Graduation Date July 2009
Specific Areas of Training:
Handwriting Identification and Discrimination, Signature Comparison, Techniques for
Distinguishing Forged Signatures, Disguised Handwriting, Altered Numbers, Anonymous
Writing, Laboratory Procedures, Forensic Microscopy and Forensic Photography,
Identifying Printing Methods, Papers and Watermarks, Factors that Affect Writing,
Demonstrative Evidence Training, Demonstrative Evidence in the High-Tech World,
Forgery Detection Techniques, Detection of Forged Checks, Document Image
Enhancement, Graphic Basis for Handwriting Comparison, Ethics in Business and the
Legal System, Mock Courtroom Trails

2 year on-the-job apprenticeship with Bart Baggett, a court qualified document examiner
and the president of the International School of Forensic Document Examination, July 2007
– July 2009.
1 of 5
Apprenticeship Included:
Gathering documents, setting up case files, scanning and photographing documents,
assisting with on-site examinations, interacting as client liaison with attorneys and
clients, accounting and billing, peer reviews, preparing court exhibits, directed and
witnessed client hand written exemplars. I re-examined 60 cases consisting of 657
documents during this time period.
Furthermore, I began taking active individual cases that were mentored and/or peer
reviewed by Bart Baggett.
Further Qualifications:
I am a Notary Public closing home loans and witnessing signatures since 2004. This has
provided me with a reference base for how a person signs in all conditions including but not
limited to: Illness and Disease; Blindness; Signature by Mark; hospital room signings of Wills,
Testaments, Advanced Healthcare Directives, and Power of Attorney documents; and, Death
Bed signatures. I was licensed from 2005 – 2009 in Real Estate procuring mortgages giving me
firsthand knowledge of deeds, contracts, and loan documents.
Laboratory Equipment:
Ms. Barto’s laboratory is equipped to handle forensic handwriting analysis. Her laboratory
consists of equipment used for examination, such as: 4x – 10x digital microscope; HP high
resolution flatbed scanner/copier/fax; light table; numerous magnifying devices; Nikon
COOLPIX 35mm digital camera; protractor and metric measuring devices; black and infrared
lights; supporting computer programs.
Library:
Library consists of numerous forensic document examination titles, other handwriting reference
materials, legal assisting publications, psychology publications that assist in assessing
neurological diseases or illnesses, and behavior profiling.
Guest Speaker:
2011 – ITT Tech – Criminal Justice program – Forensics Class
2013 – 2014 Girls Scouts – Crime Scene Investigation Badge – Promoting interest in young
girls in the trades of forensic sciences.
2011 and 2014 – ASIS International – Security Professionals Organization – Keep professionals
in the field of security and safety up-to-date on latest techniques through informative speakers
in specific areas of awareness.
Associations:
2012 – 2014 - The Bar Association of San Francisco, Northern California, Register of Experts
and Consultants – Directory Listing
2 of 5
2014 – Better Business Bureau - Accredited
Listed as an Expert Witness for: Sacramento County – Placer County – Fresno County – Plumas
County, California, Public Defenders Office. Referred by: Public Defender, David Bonilla, Franz
Criego, and Trisha Pal.
Court Testimony:
Superior Court of California, County of Alameda
1221 Oak St., Dept. 24, 3rd Flr.
Oakland, CA
Judge Patrick Zika
Dismuke vs. Dismuke
Dkt# RG05228940
February 10, 2009
Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento
100 Bicentennial Drive
Sacramento, Ca. 95826
Judge Delbert W. Oros
Sone vs. Fisher
Dkt# 09SC00967
March 26, 2009
Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento
100 Bicentennial Drive
Sacramento, Ca. 95826
Judge John M. O’Donnell
Youa vs. Youa/Xiong/Child Action
Dkt#09SC05006
December 18, 2009
Superior Court of California, County of Alameda
24405 Amador St Dept 507, Flr. 2
Hayward, Ca. 94544
Judge Elizabeth Hendrickson
Hong vs. Wang
Dkt# FF07342127
September 24, 2010
Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo
400 County Center, Dept. 28
Redwood City, Ca. 94063
Judge George A. Miram
Dickson vs. Scagliola
Dkt#PRO120063
October 26, 2010
Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento
3341 Power Inn Road
Sacramento, Ca. 95826
Judge Gerrit W. Wood
Wenzell v. Wenzell
Dkt#34-2009-00057473
January 13, 2011
Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo
400 County Center, Dept.
Redwood City, Ca. 94063
Judge Stephanie Garratt
Leigh v. Lampert
TRO Hearing
March 30, 2011
Superior Court of California, County of San Joaquin
222 East Weber Street
Stockton, California 92114
Judge Carter P. Holly
Bafaiz v. Morrison
Contract Case
July 22, 2011
Superior Court of California, County of Merced
2260 N Street
Merced, CA 95340
Judge Gerald W. Corman
Chaudhry v. Hossain
Dkt # FLM-47893
Family Law - February 8, 2012
Superior Court of California, County of San Joaquin
222 East Weber Street
Stockton, California 92114
People v. Serratos III
Criminal Case
February 13, 2012
Superior Court of California, County of Solano
3055 Cleveland Ave
Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Dept #19
Judge Arthur Wick
Niffenegger v. Long
Dkt # SCV-249528
Criminal Case
February 27, 2012
Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara
191 N. First Street
San Jose, CA 95113
Judge William J. Monohan
Reynolds v. Lydecker
Dkt # 1-10-CV-171079
Civil Law
June 26, 2012
3 of 5
Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento
720 9th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Albaz v. Saleh
Unlawful Detainer
November 29, 2012
Superior Court of California, County of Contra Costa
725 Court Street
Martinez, CA 94553
Judge David B. Flinn
Scarano v. Bellmore
No. P12-00905
Probate Law
February 27 & 28, 2013
Superior Court of California, County of Plumas
520 Main Street
Quincy, CA 95971
Arbitrator Christopher Burdick
County of Plumas, Employer, v. Ted Sieck, Employee
C.S.M.C.S. Case #ARB-12-0173
May 15, 2013
Superior Court of California, County of Nevada
220 Church Street
Nevada City, CA 95959
Commissioner
Hassan v. Hassan
Family Law
July 9, 2013
Superior Court of California, County of Solano
600 Union Avenue
Fairfield, CA 94533
Judge Harry S. Kinnicutt
Centro Property Owner II, LLC v. Chang
Civil Law
February 19, 2014
Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco
400 MacAllister Street Dept. 201
San Francisco, CA 94102
Judge McBride
Murray Jr. v. Anoushiravan Massoumi
Civil Law
September 29, 2014
Superior Court of California, County of San Bernadino
247 West 3rd Street Dept S48P
San Bernadino, CA 92415
Judge Tara Reilly
The Southorn 1995 Revocable Trust
Probate Law
October 15, 2014
Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento
3341 Power Inn Road
Sacramento, Ca. 95826
Judge Steven M. Gerverfer
Sylvia E. Newberry Estate
Probate Law
December 5, 2014 rebuttal December 12, 2014
Superior Court of California, County of Stanislaus
1300 K Street
Modesto, CA 95354
Judge Timothy W. Salter
Estate of Lonni Ashlock
Probate Law
February 5th, 2015
Superior Court of California, County of Alameda
24405 Amador Street Dept. 507
Hayward, CA 94544
Judge Alison Tucher
Tim Huang vs. Sheng Shu
Civil Law
May 26th, 2015
Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara
301 Diana Avenue, Dept. 108
Morgan Hill, CA 95037
Judge Phillip H. Pennymaker
Tom Pham vs. Cynthia D. Trinh
Family Law
October 15th, 2015
Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara
605 W. El Camino Real
Sunnyvale, CA 94086
Judge James Towery
Darlene Michaud vs. Bruce Michaud
Family Law
November 3rd, 2015
Superior Court of California, County of Alameda
2120 Martin Luther King Jr. Way Dept. 201
Berkley, CA 94704
Judge Sandra K. Bean
Estate of Hazel Ashley
Probate Law
November 19th, 2015
4 of 5
LEVELS OF OPINION-BASED ON ASTM GUIDELINES FOR EXPRESSING CONCLUSIONS
Since the observations made by the examiner relate to the product of the human behavior there
are a large number of variables that could contribute to limiting the examiner’s ability to express an
opinion confidently. These factors include the amount, degree of variability, complexity and
contemporaneity of the questioned and/or specimen writings. To allow for these limitations a scale
is used which has four levels on either side of an inconclusive result. These levels are:

Identification / Elimination
May be expressed as ‘The writer of the known documents wrote / did not write the questioned
writing.’ This opinion is used when the examiner denotes no doubt in their opinion; this is the highest
degree of confidence expressed by a document examiner.

Strong Probability
May be expressed as ‘There is a strong probability the writer of the known documents wrote / did
not write the questioned writing.’ This opinion is used when the evidence is very persuasive, yet
some critical feature or quality is missing; however, the examiner is virtually certain in their opinion.

Probable
May be expressed as ‘It is probable the writer of the known documents wrote / did not write the
questioned writing.’ This opinion is used when the evidence points strongly toward / against the
known writer; however, the evidence falls short of the virtually certain degree of confidence.

Evidence to Suggest
May be expressed as ‘there is evidence to suggest the writer of the known documents wrote / did
not write the questioned writing.’ This opinion is used when there is an identifiable limitation on the
comparison process. The evidence may have few features which are of significance for
handwriting comparisons purposes, but those features are in agreement with another body of
writing.

Inconclusive
May be expressed as ‘no conclusion could be reached as to whether the writer of the known
documents wrote / did not write the questioned writing.’ This is the zero point of the confidence
scale. It is used when there are significantly limiting factors, such as disguise in the questioned
and/or known writing or a lack of comparable writing and the examiner does not have even a
leaning one way or another.
According to the rules of the forefathers of document examination, Albert Osborn, Ordway Hilton,
Wilson Harrison, and James V.P. Conway, a single significant difference in the fundamental structure
of a writing compared to another is enough to preclude common authorship. (Handwriting Facts and
Fundamentals, Roy Huber and A.M. Headrick, CRC Press LLC, 1999, pp 50-51).
5 of 5